Second Session of Preparatory Commission for Marine Biodiversity Treaty Begins
As momentum builds towards the entry into force of a heavily anticipated marine biodiversity treaty, delegates at a preparatory meeting underscored the need for inclusive and flexible procedural modalities and financial arrangements to enable the full participation of all parties as well as the equitable implementation of the treaty itself.
The gathering, formally known as the “Preparatory Commission for the Entry into Force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the Convening of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement”, is taking place at Headquarters from 18 to 29 August. The second of three planned sessions, it will build on the first session’s work that took place from 14 to 25 April. (Coverage available here.)
The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction addresses marine genetic resources, measures such as area-based management tools, environmental-impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. It was adopted on 19 June 2023, and is open for signature until 20 September 2025.
The Agreement currently has 139 signatures, with 52 States and the European Union having now also ratified, approved or accepted it, Elinor Hammarskjöld, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel, observed in her opening remarks. “With only eight ratifications required to reach the threshold of 60, entry into force is now close,” she affirmed, which would lead to “a new phase — that of implementation”.
She invited those States planning to deposit their instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance during the General Assembly’s High-Level Week in September to make the necessary arrangements with the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs well in advance. She also reiterated the invitation to Member States and other relevant stakeholders to make financial contributions to the relevant trust fund, which is critical to assist developing countries in attending the meetings of the Preparatory Commission.
Recalling the 2025 UN Ocean Conference held in Nice in June, co-hosted by France and Costa Rica, she said that it reaffirmed the essential role of multilateralism in addressing the pressures putting marine ecosystems at risk. Further, the 39 treaty actions by States from all regions undertaken during the Ocean Conference demonstrated the international community’s strong commitment to conserve and sustainably use the ocean and its resources.
With the ocean experiencing severe and unprecedented threats, “the need for decisive and concerted action has never been more urgent”, she stressed. Now, “with the real probability of the first Conference of the Parties to the Agreement convening in 2026, we are at a critical juncture”, she stated.
That urgency was echoed by the Commission’s Co-Chair Janine Coye-Felson (Belize), who said: “If the momentum bolstered by the third United Nations Oceans Conference, held in Nice in June this year, sustains, it can be reasonably expected that the Agreement may enter into force in the latter part of 2025, or early 2026.” Noting that the room was at capacity, she said that the level of enthusiasm at this second session demonstrates “how much we have invested in this agreement” and how States and others are keen to see it enter into force.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the Secretary-General no later than one year after the entry into force of the Agreement — which could be as soon as the latter part of 2026. “However, a considerable amount of work remains for the Commission to complete before this milestone,” she warned. Her Co-Chair Adam McCarthy (Australia) noted that, during the first session, “we all knew the finish line was out there somewhere” — but where and when was unclear. Since then, “the rate of ratifications has seen a significant step-up”, he said, thanking delegates for their hard work and flexibility thus far.
Delegates Discuss Rules of Procedure for Conference of the Parties to the Agreement
Having adopted its agenda and programme of work at its first session, the Commission decided — as before — to conduct its second session in the format of three informal working groups. It then began its first informal working group on governance issues — specifically, the rules of procedure that will apply during meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement (draft rules are contained in document A/AC.296/2025/12). Much of that discussion focused on the frequency and mode of those meetings, with delegates divided over the competing needs of flexibility and consistency.
Singapore’s delegate, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, pointed out that small States have limited capacity and will benefit from longer timelines and notice periods for meetings. And, stating that the draft rule regarding in-person or virtual participation is too prescriptive, he said that — while there is value in having a streamlined rule — it should include language providing for flexibility, including by allowing pre-recorded statements. On the election of officers for the Conference’s Bureau, he stressed that there should be a dedicated seat for small island developing States.
The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking for the Pacific small island developing States, also supported the allocation of one seat to small island developing States. Further, he called for recognition of “the distinct status of Indigenous Peoples under international law as rights-holders, rather than as mere stakeholders”. The rules concerning observers should therefore be revised to separate Indigenous Peoples from other non-State actors. On participation, he noted that his group had asked for the ability to deliver general statements by virtual means.
And, while the representative of China stressed that online meetings should be an exception — and must not allow for substantial decision-making — Jamaica’s delegate, who spoke for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that her group prefers a provision that allows for substantive decision-making during virtual meetings. To deprive States of the right to makes substantive decisions virtually would defeat the purpose of having such meetings, she noted — particularly in times of crisis.
For his part, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said that meetings held under extraordinary circumstances should occur in a fully virtual format involving all parties. He voiced concern that a hybrid format could lead to practical challenges and result in inequitable participation. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the meetings of the Conference of the Parties should be held in-person. “It would be helpful if the terms virtual, hybrid and online could be defined as they appear to be used interchangeably throughout [the relevant rule],” he added.
The representative of Sierra Leone, speaking for the African Group, also emphasized that in-person meetings must remain the norm for decision-making. Additionally, she encouraged the exploration of rotational hosting arrangements for meetings of the Conference of the Parties, noting that this promotes equitable participation, capacity-building and global ownership — particularly for developing States.
In that vein, Iraq’s delegate, speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, highlighted the importance of prioritizing the needs of developing counties as he called for further clarification on the rules relating to cooperation among relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies as well as to requesting advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The representative of the Philippines, relatedly, said that the rules should prioritize the special circumstances of small island developing States, least developed countries and archipelagic States. “The [Agreement] is particularly relevant considering the pocket of high seas and the area in our region,” she underscored.
However, the representative of the Russian Federation stressed: “For us, this Agreement is not acceptable at all.” This is because it contains no checks and balances, and undermines the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Creating marine protected areas and other related instruments “is just another tool for intervention in internal affairs”, she said, adding that the Agreement is also damaging to States with claims for an extended continental shelf.
Speakers Also Discuss Funding Arrangements with the Global Environment Facility
In the afternoon, the Commission held two parallel meetings, with working groups addressing the rules of procedure for subsidiary bodies and arrangements with the Global Environment Facility to give effect to the relevant provisions on funding. In the latter, delegates discussed a draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement and the Council of the Global Environment Facility (contained in document A/AC.296/2025/14).
The representative of Iraq, speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, stressed the need to support developing States through capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. Therefore, the Facility should contemplate funding that enables small island developing States and least developed countries to fulfil their obligations and secure their rights in this domain. Guyana’s delegate, speaking for CARICOM, underscored the need for a streamlined application, approval and disbursement processes for small island developing States under the financial mechanism.
Several speakers, including the representative of Seychelles — speaking for the African Group — voiced support for the addition of language enabling the Conference of the Parties to commission an independent assessment of the Facility’s overall performance. Brazil’s representative, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, suggested adjustments to reinforce language regarding the independent assessment of the efficiency and adequacy of the Facility, while the Maldives’ representative — speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States — suggested stronger language on communicating the results of these reviews.
However, the representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, objected to the possibility of commissioning an additional independent assessment of the Facility’s performance. “The assessment to be produced by the [Facility’s] independent evaluation office is already independent,” she pointed out, adding that such assessments represent additional costs. Similarly, Canada’s representative expressed concern over stringent, lengthy oversight measures, cautioning that this could lead to delays in project implementation. For her part, Norway’s representative suggested the alignment of draft language with that in existing memoranda of understanding.
The Preparatory Commission will reconvene tomorrow, 19 August, to hear the results of the parallel meeting on rules of procedure for subsidiary bodies and to continue its work.